|
Post by Gran Gran on Sept 11, 2010 17:13:31 GMT -5
you made a funny While it is usually the end of any meaningful discussion that does usually liken improbable things to actions of the nazis. However, in the case of book burning, they set a precedent: Soon after they threw the writers of those books into the fire as well. So, sadly, I still win.
|
|
|
Post by Nightmare on Sept 11, 2010 18:15:18 GMT -5
Well, hell, if you're allowed to extrapolate like that, exceptions will swallow the rule. I could argue that bikers are Nazis because Nazis road motorcycles. In order to not have violated Godwin's law, you have to take the actions of the Florida pastor (who, btw, has not yet burned one Koran) and compare them to genocide and concentration camps. There's no credible comparison, so that's a fail. Nice try though.
|
|
asian malaysian
Avatar Kyoshi
Let me hear you say this ship is bananas! B-A-NA-N-A-S!
Posts: 1,308
|
Post by asian malaysian on Sept 12, 2010 23:37:37 GMT -5
The principle predates the Nazis "Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings.” (German: “ Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen.”) - Heinrich Heine, Almansor (1821) Okay, if opposition to the mosque by families of 9/11 victims is not compelling enough, how about those of a self described "believing" Muslim? BTW I'm reading the linked articles of the mosque's supporters here, how about you guys? Are you willing to read opinions and articles that present an opposing view point? Isn't that the purpose of providing links in this board? I ask because nobody's commented either way on articles I've posted the links to. Anyway, if anyone's willing: The Mosque at Ground Zero, a Muslim View: Planting a Flag on an Islamic Conquest www.hudson-ny.org/1346/mosque-at-ground-zero-muslim-view"Implementation of this mosque will make the Jihadists delighted. And I have no taste for helping them be so." Neither do I. As you own description of the author suggest, I dont find anything particularly muslim about the view expounded in article by this Bangladeshi editor. "jihad jockeys" doesnt sound like an expression a muslim would use and can come off pretty offensive too. "To Muslims worldwide, it would be a symbol of the progress they are making, like triumphantly planting an Islamic flag in Ground Zero. None of the newspapers in the Muslim world is even uttering a single word against this project. Rather, many are either advocating its construction or even trying to provoke readers into raising their voices in favor of the construction of this mosque" Which begs the question why a believing Muslim would object. How is this for an idea. Imagine if American muslims (because of thei faith and because of their American values) can convice pakistanis or arabs or what-have-yous with extremist tendencies NOT to carry an attack saving lives instead of the otherway around. Isnt that something worth striving for? Shouldnt we be making this easier instead of harder?
|
|
|
Post by Nightmare on Sept 13, 2010 7:34:40 GMT -5
The principle predates the Nazis "Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings.” (German: “ Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen.”) - Heinrich Heine, Almansor (1821) Okay, if opposition to the mosque by families of 9/11 victims is not compelling enough, how about those of a self described "believing" Muslim? BTW I'm reading the linked articles of the mosque's supporters here, how about you guys? Are you willing to read opinions and articles that present an opposing view point? Isn't that the purpose of providing links in this board? I ask because nobody's commented either way on articles I've posted the links to. Anyway, if anyone's willing: The Mosque at Ground Zero, a Muslim View: Planting a Flag on an Islamic Conquest www.hudson-ny.org/1346/mosque-at-ground-zero-muslim-view"Implementation of this mosque will make the Jihadists delighted. And I have no taste for helping them be so." Neither do I. As you own description of the author suggest, I dont find anything particularly muslim about the view expounded in article by this Bangladeshi editor. "jihad jockeys" doesnt sound like an expression a muslim would use and can come off pretty offensive too. "To Muslims worldwide, it would be a symbol of the progress they are making, like triumphantly planting an Islamic flag in Ground Zero. None of the newspapers in the Muslim world is even uttering a single word against this project. Rather, many are either advocating its construction or even trying to provoke readers into raising their voices in favor of the construction of this mosque" Which begs the question why a believing Muslim would object. Interesting. So are you suggesting that, because he's in the minority of Muslims who oppose the mosque, that means he's not a true Muslim? Because, y'know, the majority of Americans oppose the mosque, so by your reasoning, that makes those who support the mosque not true Americans. Let me just point out that the article by USA Today that was posted earlier and was in support of the mosque, also acknowledged that some Muslim's oppose the mosque. This is not realistic. You think terrorists care what American or moderate Muslims think? See, what you think would be seen as this grand gesture would be seen by terrorists as a sign of dominance and victory, a monument to the "heroic" hijackers. You cannot bargain with those who want your destruction. It's why no peace accord between Israel and Palestine will ever hold. Hamas is committed to Israel's destruction (it's in their charter, I can show you if you need me too), and no amount of compromise will change that.
|
|
asian malaysian
Avatar Kyoshi
Let me hear you say this ship is bananas! B-A-NA-N-A-S!
Posts: 1,308
|
Post by asian malaysian on Sept 14, 2010 4:05:14 GMT -5
The principle predates the Nazis "Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings.” (German: “ Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen.”) - Heinrich Heine, Almansor (1821) As you own description of the author suggest, I dont find anything particularly muslim about the view expounded in article by this Bangladeshi editor. "jihad jockeys" doesnt sound like an expression a muslim would use and can come off pretty offensive too. "To Muslims worldwide, it would be a symbol of the progress they are making, like triumphantly planting an Islamic flag in Ground Zero. None of the newspapers in the Muslim world is even uttering a single word against this project. Rather, many are either advocating its construction or even trying to provoke readers into raising their voices in favor of the construction of this mosque" Which begs the question why a believing Muslim would object. Interesting. So are you suggesting that, because he's in the minority of Muslims who oppose the mosque, that means he's not a true Muslim? Because, y'know, the majority of Americans oppose the mosque, so by your reasoning, that makes those who support the mosque not true Americans. Is that what I said? Did I mention anything about how popular his views were? If a christian were to refer to "Jesus jockeys" wouldnt it raise some doubt as to his faith? If it were a Christian Center we were discussing, would a Christian object to "a symbol of the progress they are making,etc"? If you claim to be putting forward a view the perspectve of a specific faith, as is implied by the title this man's editorial, there should be some evidence of it in the writing. I have no doubt there are muslim who dont agree with the location of the muslim center but I dont think they would have justified it the way he did. This is not realistic. You think terrorists care what American or moderate Muslims think? See, what you think would be seen as this grand gesture would be seen by terrorists as a sign of dominance and victory, a monument to the "heroic" hijackers. You cannot bargain with those who want your destruction. It's why no peace accord between Israel and Palestine will ever hold. Hamas is committed to Israel's destruction (it's in their charter, I can show you if you need me too), and no amount of compromise will change that. Nobody is born a terrorist and nobody is immune from persuasion. Every single terrorist started as a resonable human being who was persuaded overtime down his path by some one else or his experiences. There is nothing new here. Muslim socities are currently threading the same dangerous path that Christian socieities thread hundred of years ago entailing centuries of bloodshed. We need to help make the Muslim progression on this route easier and certainly a lot faster. But before you can preach to the world, you have to practice at home. America has to trust that its Muslim citizens share the same fundamental American values. Differences in faith should not be an insurmountable stumbling block. You wouldnt consider an Irish Catholic American a supporter of the IRA on that ground alone. You may even have come to trust such person's values inspite of his faith and ethnicity enough to elect him President of the united States. Deciding against ANY course of action on the basis that you think the terrorist will consider it a victory is just as good as letting them decide it for you. If we are going to treat all muslims the same regardless of race, nationality, politics or the hundred different ways that you would separate yourself from someone else of supposedly the same faith as you, we will be confirming to muslims and the rest of the world everything the terrorsts have been saying about us. Worse of all, we would be confirming it to ourselves. Btw, well need a whole new thread if were going to discuss Israel and Palestine.
|
|
|
Post by Nightmare on Sept 15, 2010 12:07:06 GMT -5
"Deciding against ANY course of action on the basis that you think the terrorist will consider it a victory is just as good as letting them decide it for you." This also true of deciding FOR any course of action, especially if it's done against overwhelming public opposition. No need to get into Israel/Palestine. I'm pretty sure I know where you stand. Okay, from the beginning of this thread, pretty much everyone has said that the Pastor has a right to burn the Koran (even if, morally, it's wrong). Supreme Court justice says, "not so fast." Maybe it's not protected speech. www.cnsnews.com/news/article/75333Where's the fairness here? Folks burn flags and bibles all the time. Justice Breyer seems to be saying that Muslims have no choice but to react violently so inciting them may not be protected. I thought we believed in protecting even offensive speech.
|
|
|
Post by Gran Gran on Sept 15, 2010 12:43:57 GMT -5
I have not seen anybody burn anything on US soil in a while so please state your sources on flag and bible burnings.
The middle East does not count in that perspective.
|
|
|
Post by Nightmare on Sept 15, 2010 13:09:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Gran Gran on Sept 15, 2010 13:28:42 GMT -5
LOL, youtube....
alright then
|
|
|
Post by Nightmare on Sept 15, 2010 13:33:54 GMT -5
LOL, youtube.... alright then I figured seeing it for yourself would be the best source. I love YouTube. That second video is really quite funny. She says things that make no sense, can't keep the fire going then almost catches her hair on fire. Kinda makes you wonder how the Nazi's ever got so close to world domination. ;D
|
|
asian malaysian
Avatar Kyoshi
Let me hear you say this ship is bananas! B-A-NA-N-A-S!
Posts: 1,308
|
Post by asian malaysian on Sept 15, 2010 18:39:55 GMT -5
"Deciding against ANY course of action on the basis that you think the terrorist will consider it a victory is just as good as letting them decide it for you." This also true of deciding FOR any course of action, especially if it's done against overwhelming public opposition. No need to get into Israel/Palestine. I'm pretty sure I know where you stand. Okay, from the beginning of this thread, pretty much everyone has said that the Pastor has a right to burn the Koran (even if, morally, it's wrong). Supreme Court justice says, "not so fast." Maybe it's not protected speech. www.cnsnews.com/news/article/75333Where's the fairness here? Folks burn flags and bibles all the time. Justice Breyer seems to be saying that Muslims have no choice but to react violently so inciting them may not be protected. I thought we believed in protecting even offensive speech. I wouldnt be too sure about that overwhelming suppport. Im also pretty sure you'd be dead wrong about where I stand on Israel seeing what youre basing your assumptions on. With respect to Justice Breyer's suggestion, I dont think his view will hold up if the matter actually went to the Supreme Court.
|
|
|
Post by Nightmare on Sept 15, 2010 19:31:46 GMT -5
"Deciding against ANY course of action on the basis that you think the terrorist will consider it a victory is just as good as letting them decide it for you." This also true of deciding FOR any course of action, especially if it's done against overwhelming public opposition. No need to get into Israel/Palestine. I'm pretty sure I know where you stand. Okay, from the beginning of this thread, pretty much everyone has said that the Pastor has a right to burn the Koran (even if, morally, it's wrong). Supreme Court justice says, "not so fast." Maybe it's not protected speech. www.cnsnews.com/news/article/75333Where's the fairness here? Folks burn flags and bibles all the time. Justice Breyer seems to be saying that Muslims have no choice but to react violently so inciting them may not be protected. I thought we believed in protecting even offensive speech. I wouldnt be too sure about that overwhelming suppport. Where did I say anything about overwhelming support? I mentioned overwhelming public opposition and that I'm quite sure of. It's possible you could surprise me, but I doubt it. No offense. That's not really my point at all, although, with the current court's makeup, you're probably right. My point is more that he's suggesting the Koran may need to be legally protected where other religious texts shouldn't be. That's a scary thing for a Supreme Cout Justice to advocate, if you're a big proponent of the 1st Amendment.
|
|
asian malaysian
Avatar Kyoshi
Let me hear you say this ship is bananas! B-A-NA-N-A-S!
Posts: 1,308
|
Post by asian malaysian on Sept 15, 2010 20:22:23 GMT -5
I wouldnt be too sure about that overwhelming suppport. Where did I say anything about overwhelming support? I mentioned overwhelming public opposition and that I'm quite sure of. Meant overwhelming support for your position. The most vocality of a group is not a good indication of its size. For the record, Im a firm supporter of Israel. While religion is a factor in the global nature of the conflict, I dont see the need or indeed the sense in equating a Pro-Israeli stand with an anti-Islamic one.
|
|
|
Post by Nightmare on Sept 15, 2010 20:47:39 GMT -5
Where did I say anything about overwhelming support? I mentioned overwhelming public opposition and that I'm quite sure of. Meant overwhelming support for your position. The most vocality of a group is not a good indication of its size. For the record, Im a firm supporter of Israel. While religion is a factor in the global nature of the conflict, I dont see the need or indeed the sense in equating a Pro-Israeli stand with an anti-Islamic one. I agree although I'm not sure why you bring this up. I did not refer to Israel vs Islam. I specified repeatedly Israel vs Palestine. Actually, this is common forum trick, you don't like/can't answer what's actually written so you reframe the comment in a way more to your liking and respond to that instead. Anyway, pro Israel does not necessarily mean anti Islam, however, pro Islam does, more often than not, mean anti Israel.
|
|
|
Post by luthien on Sept 16, 2010 16:27:22 GMT -5
Meant overwhelming support for your position. The most vocality of a group is not a good indication of its size. For the record, Im a firm supporter of Israel. While religion is a factor in the global nature of the conflict, I dont see the need or indeed the sense in equating a Pro-Israeli stand with an anti-Islamic one. I agree although I'm not sure why you bring this up. I did not refer to Israel vs Islam. I specified repeatedly Israel vs Palestine. Actually, this is common forum trick, you don't like/can't answer what's actually written so you reframe the comment in a way more to your liking and respond to that instead. Anyway, pro Israel does not necessarily mean anti Islam, however, pro Islam does, more often than not, mean anti Israel. Wow. That last sentence is a hell of a broad statement.
|
|